RP On the Web!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are two beautiful truths everyone should know about the First Amendment to the US Constitution. An understanding of these two truths is the only hope we have for remaining a truly free society.
The first truth is simple and obvious; the First Amendment is one sentence. “Short and sweet,” some might say. It was written to be broad, inclusive, and authoritative. In that one sentence the “four pillars” of free speech; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to petition government, are all touched upon as co-equal rights.

Second, it is a restriction upon the government, not the people. Thus the amendment states that “Congress shall make no law” either favoring or prohibiting religious freedoms, press freedoms, free speech, and our right to petition government. At first the law applied only to the federal government, but in 1925, the US Supreme Court ruled in Gitlow v. New York that Fourteenth Amendment protections imposed the same limitations on state government as well.

So, what the First Amendment amounts to is my guaranteed right to offend some or even all my fellow citizens with what I say and write. No doubt some have read my articles and already been offended. For those who have offended me with their ideas I say only, “more power to you!”

Which is why one of the greatest ironies of modern times is that a few powerful and influential liberals have flipped this law on its head so as to justify the use of government power to restrict free speech. These so-called ‘intellectuals’ in their wisdom have determined, for example, that “freedom of religion” really means “freedom from religion.” And since government, in their minds, is the impartial, benevolent force that guides us, it is their job to insure free of religion, speech, the press, and the right to petition through the creation of rules, ordinances, and laws.

By taking a Jefferson quote regarding the “wall of separation” between church and state out of context, liberals have argued that the “wall” referred to by Jefferson is a call to legislation and judicial activism. Of course, what Jefferson really meant was that the First Amendment serves as more of a restraining order against government. It’s meant to insure that government cannot do the very things that liberals insist it must do, restrict and regulate free speech. How do we know this to be true? Because Jefferson said many other things about this amendment, such as this illuminating quote:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Miller, 1808.

Here we can truly understanding the definition of “wall” from Jefferson’s oft quoted “wall of separation” comment to Danbury Baptists. He was saying that it’s a barrier, a restraining order, against government. The government has no power to regulate the free exercise of religion. The people themselves are not similarly restrained. But, in the minds of some liberals, exactly the opposite is true. How can government be put in charge of enforcing the First Amendment when this amendment prohibits government from making laws respecting or abridging these freedoms?

This is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Why not just change the law so that, when a court issues a restraining order against an abusive person, they put that same person in charge of enforcing the order? That makes just as much sense as what we see today with government and judicial activism in regards to our speech rights.

Thus we have “free speech zones” where protesters are ‘allowed’ to assemble when a public figure is speaking at a rally, speech codes in schools and on college campuses across the country, restrictions on the use of public facilities by religious organizations, censorship of monuments that might in any overt or covert way express religious faith, a myriad of campaign finance laws which tell candidates when and how they can address the public with donations provided by the public, and many other such restrictions.

One of the true strengths of a democratic society is the ability to express ourselves freely. With the right to free speech comes the guarantees someone is going to be offended at some level. Which is why, the true test of tolerance is not our ability to repress offensive ideas, speech, art, etc., but our ability to answer back with more speech to counter those offensive ideas. The only real answer to speech with which we disagree is more speech, not less.

The final thing to consider is this. The Constitution was crafted in such a way that it gave fundamental power to the people, not the government. It was a rejection of the idea that a few elites were better equipped to run our lives than we ourselves are equipped to run them. It was an affirmation of the wisdom inherent in a free society to run its own affairs.

In the past 100 years we have seen an attempt on the part of the elites to turn away from that principle and to once again assert the supposed right of the few to lead the many. It’s a philosophy that has been disproved continuously through all of human history, and it’s one which we must not allow in this country again. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

64 Responses to “The First Amendment – A Right to Offend”

Very thoughtful summary of liberal government contempt of free speech when exercised by the people whom it considers subjects and not citizens.

2

Patrick McCain Says:
November 18th, 2012 at 11:24 am

Anyone believe Obama has ever read the constitution?

3

Ryan Kane Says:
November 18th, 2012 at 12:48 pm

You are correct, the constitution restricts the government’s powers and not the peoples.

There are so many first amendment cases, it is amazing to study and debate each, and many may not suspect certain things of being a first amendment case. This includes things like school vouchers, as should the government be providing funding to a school which may be dominational?

4

RonM Says:
November 18th, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Patrick McCain – Obama was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for 8 years.

5

David Flanagan Says:
November 18th, 2012 at 1:25 pm

I think the president read the Constitution, but I think he has a classical liberal view of it. that is, as a living document. He sees Constitution in many ways limiting his power to do “the right thing” for people, and thus ignores it. It’s the view that some liberal elites have that they know better how to lead us little people. And the great irony is that the Constitution was created to empower the federal government, replacing the Articles of Confederation which did not give enough authority to a central government. The Bill of Rights was put into place to help keep that government away from certain areas, and then the amendment process was created to fix glaring problems or address the future concerns of the country.

But liberals don’t like the amendment process because it means they have to rely on the judgement of the American people rather than their own sage wisdom. Pardon me while I go barf.

Comprehending and reading are two different things.
The question Patrick asks is a valid inquiry since it would seem Barry does not follow it.
For example.
Obamacare
It was argued that the law could be considered a tax, and this is the argument the court bought.

Specifically, the court held that the individual mandate is not a “penalty,” as the health-care law identified it, but a tax, and therefore a constitutional application of Congress’s taxation power.
Previous to the SCOTUS ruling Barrys application would of been unconstitutional.
So, reading the constitution a hundred times does no good if you’re applying Marxism to your interpretation.
Millions of lawyers and politicians have read the Constitution as pre-requisite. The interpretations some legislate by have lost in court.
A simple difference in title can mean everything.
In this case a fee being called a (mandatory) penalty and not a tax was unconstitutional.
This a basic construct anyone professing in the constitution should know

—————-
Best Law Schools In America
U.S.News & World Reports 2012
#5 University of Chicago,Chicago, IL
(Sounds pretty “top” to me)
—————-

The rest you can look up for yourself…..If you know how to that is…..LOL.

12

RonM Says:
November 18th, 2012 at 9:09 pm

Micky – As the legislation was written and as the SCOTUS ruled, explain to me the difference between a tax as penalty, and a penalty enforced in the form of a tax?

As I wasn’t a unanimous decision, there’s probably room for interpretation. Have to admit I haven’t read all the justices opinions.

David Flanagan – Correct you are. Obama taught while practicing law.

13

Faye Says:
November 19th, 2012 at 2:35 am

Faye – Have you ever heard of the search engine called “Google”?

RonM?
Yes indeedy I have. The CEO kisses Blamo’s a**.
Now go buy some kneepads and bow down.
You are a moonbat sheeple.
Next you will tell us to join AARP (Insert Bailout Money Here)
ROFL.
Like a typical democrap-you dodged the question.
Blamo is NO scholar.

Hey Patrick, Obama has read Nancy Pelosi’s abridged summation of the U.S. Constitution. Kind of like Cliff Notes for Dummies.

Sometimes I do wish that we had gone with Roger Sherman’s version of the Bill of Rights, as it put free speech second after his First Amendment, a wider, more comprehensive argument for keeping and bearing arms.

16

RonM Says:
November 19th, 2012 at 7:04 am

Faye – I’m new to this site and learning very quickly who is serious, mature, worth engaging in conversation/debate with, and who is a name-calling adolescent with nothing to offer except a waste of my time. I place you in the latter category.

I was under the first impression that this was a serious site for adults. Not a place for calling people “moonbats”….etc.

As for your question that you say I dodged, define “Community Organizer”? Sure

DEFINITION-

“Community Organizer”:

A commonly used phrase by the American Republican Party to describe a two term President of the United States.

17

RonM Says:
November 19th, 2012 at 8:00 am

David Flanagan – So you’re referencing a “birther” like Ed Klein? A guy who claims Rev. Wright convinced Obama to embrace Christianity and Islam AT THE SAME TIME? That’s like citing Trump if you ask me. Sorry. Try citing a Krauthammer, or G.F. Will…etc. I may disagree with those guys, but at least they’re not in the tin-foil hat crowd.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I’ve heard Ed speaking to Medved several times and he’s not a birther and certainly does not believe that Obama is a Muslim. The Amateur does address the Wright situation, but it only discusses his association with Pastor Wright and puts the situation into, I think, a relevant context.

If you’re talking about the 2010 Ed Klein book, The Obama Identity (I think that’s the title), that was fiction and you can find it in the humor section of Amazon. That tells you about the liberal sense of humor more than Obama himself I think.

19

Snow Crash Says:
November 19th, 2012 at 9:07 am

I’m struggling to think of just three good Republican comedians. Clint Eastwood with his whole empty chair bit was hilarious, but I’m drawing a blank after that…

Can you name two more?

20

RonM Says:
November 19th, 2012 at 12:45 pm

David Flanagan – To be honest, with the likes of Ann Coulter in conservative ranks, the line between serious and satire get’s a bit blurred. If someone had told me there would be “birthers” years ago, I would have though it was something satirizing the right.

As for the “real” Ed Klein, can you give me a synopsis of his Obama thoughts….

A commonly used phrase by the American Republican Party to describe a two term President of the United States.”

” I’m new to this site and learning very quickly who is serious, mature, worth engaging in conversation/debate with…
… I place you in the latter category.

I was under the first impression that this was a serious site for adults.”

And yet you submit that community organizer is a two term president ?
You failed the intellectual honesty test bro.
You’re no better than anyone else here.
Matter of fact, you suck big time.
You and your posts are actually not debatable since they’re all based on your opinion and claims with nothing to back them.

Micky – I never said Obama wasn’t an organizer. He did it for a few years before he went off to Harvard. Kinda like Mitt Romney being a missionary you know.

Anyway. Do you always have to revert into making personal attacks…name-calling….etc?

Seriously. You sound very bipolar to me. Seems like you just want to start fights and scream. If this is the only way you can communicate with people, then please leave me alone and go harass someone else.